Terminated Temporary Workers Given Right To Apply In Future Recruitment Processes Along With Age Relaxation: Madras HC

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shamim Ahmed held that seasonal workers whose engagement was cancelled due to procedural irregularities, should not be punished for faults of the selection committee. The court ruled that while such temporary workers could not be reinstated, they must be permitted to participate in future recruitment processes, along with appropriate age relaxation. Background Maheshwaran, along with 20 other petitioners, was appointed as the Seasonal Watchman in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC). This was done through a public recruitment process. The petitioners were selected and they joined in for the 2018-2019 season. However, after the season ended, their services were terminated due to the stoppage of paddy inflow. As per the agreement between the TNCSC and the trade union, seasonal employees who were initially recruited through employment exchange should be given preference for future season hiring, along with age relaxation. Thus, based on this, Maheshwaran and the other petitioners expected that their services would be engaged even for the 2019-2020 season. However, the Corporation instead brought other Seasonal Bill Clerks from Tirunelveli to Madurai, and did not re-employ any of the petitioners. Later, on 15th February 2021, the TNCSC even terminated the appointment of all petitioners, stating that they were made without following proper guidelines and procedures. A fresh selection process was proposed and all previous appointments were cancelled. Aggrieved, Maheshwaran along with the other 20 workers filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement with back wages. Arguments Representing the Petitioners, Mr. Kirubakaran argued that all appointments were made through open market and public recruitment, and the workers had worked for the 2018-2019 season. He argued that as per the agreement, the employees had to be engaged in the subsequent seasons as well. He submitted that the workers' appointment could not be unilaterally cancelled without giving them an opportunity to be heard. Representing the Corporation, Mr. Mohankumar maintained that the petitioners were only hired as temporary seasonal employees, for one specific season. Once completed, they were ousted from service by a suspension order. He also pointed out that the suspension order went unchallenged. Thus, he argued, that there was no question of reinstating them with back wages, as they were not permanent employees. Court's Findings Firstly, the court held that the petitioners were only hired as seasonal workers for paddy procurement. The court explained that the selection committee made certain appointments without properly following the requisite guidelines, thereby resulting in disciplinary proceedings against these officers. Since the recruitment took place only for one season, the court held that the workers' suspension was procedurally valid. Secondly, the court explained that despite the termination of the workers' service, they are eligible to participate in future recruitment processes. The court observed that the workers could apply to new positions and were not precluded from being considered for future positions. Thirdly, the court noted that the irregularity in the appointment process was not the fault of the workers, and they should not be penalised for the selection committee's errors. The court also held that the termination should not adversely effect the petitioners' reputation. Considering the petitioners' prior experience as a seasonal employee, the court held that they should be granted an age relaxation for the forthcoming selection process. Thus, the court directed the Corporation to allow the petitioners to apply for any future recruitment, and to consider these applications independently. Consequently, the court partially allowed the writ petition. Decided on: 07.04.2025Case Title: M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 Case No.: WP(MD)No.10763 of 2021 Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. D. Kirubakaran for M/s. B. Saravanan Associates Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G. Mohankumar, Standing Counsel Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Terminated Temporary Workers Given Right To Apply In Future Recruitment Processes Along With Age Relaxation: Madras HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags